Purely semantic arguments aren't helpful to anyone.

The word "bias" clearly has two senses in this context. The original term from signal processing indicates a persistent offset, which got appropriated in politics to reflect the idea of a "lean" in coverage. So now "Bias" means "politically charged in some direction or another".

So you can have a "biased" term ("occupy") next to another biased term ("tea party") in a search. And it's reasonable to call the whole thing a collection of biased terms even though by the original definition I guess you'd say they cancel out and are "unbiased".

Language is language. It may not be rational but it's by definition never "nonsense". Don't argue with it except to clarify.

▲

jeffbee 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Your comment is longer nonsense. Individual data points in a population cannot be biased. Bias is an aggregate statistic of the sample population.

	▲	ajross 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Your comment is longer nonsense. Sigh, here we go. > Individual data points in a population cannot be biased. Indeed they[1] cannot! By the first definition I listed. Conversely, the term "tea party" is a "biased" political term by the second, as it connotes a particular political perspective. I didn't make this stuff up, check definition 1a in M-W: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias#h1 [1] The discussion is about search terms, btw. Not "data points", which sort of confounds your analysis.